Lax; 4.x 5” u... «aflm‘fikfififlzfi 1.1 . 4..... 4444443.? .0: . 4 4.4.4.... .. ..4..4.. 24»... . 43$, . . . 4.x. .VIIIVI ‘3 3‘1] I.” .. . .3511. . 5:31...) ... It 2...... db?! 1.43.?! L.I. $.- 1 .922... .3at‘liil Iii .15....15933.‘ "Wt... 1.400.:- .2 5.4.39... . N 15!}. . ‘Ir.itsmi.nun. .ufl - Kuhnfllhrihiiil} 41.13.3213", If rliuwaii. r... . 1...... 2!... i 1..."...flru! 4.. \Jiuufil I. 3 $3.24“): oi. .4 [Ear . AI .aell uvluao‘ii 53.3. 91.5 I. 3.....5‘ \ .7 2. 4 5.... its... 3...... s... .4. . . . 3......4 2.-.... . .4. in .. . . its..." . . 1.... 3...... 23455.14; 1.9.5-1... z... . v... ilulfiitsax... s...)!l.t.9.:.lr .15!’00‘|‘k.‘u~0§.fv§lll .I..-‘ it... rut. . .. 1 IVA... . ... 121...}... .3. .vvtivlloi. (iii 4.... ..I. 02.1.3?- .§(:ov . I}... (.91.. 4.. :00. biliaVlal. IE :53“: )2 .. 41.4393, .. ., . . §.%§..n.fi.fimn 4...-I. .1 \‘i 3.: .. . . 5.3.1.3-.. m LIBRARY Michigan State 3 University Li W M This is to certify that the dissertation entitled CURRICULUM ABOUT OTHERS, CURRICULUM OF OTHERING: ASIA IN TWO AMERICAN CLASSROOMS presented by WON PYO HONG has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph. D degree in Teacher Education 9’ §—0C Curriculum as a site of public imagination \ f { National Identig Dialectic of who we are and who they are Figure 6.1. Dynamics of Identity Construction Figure 6.1 shows that school curriculum involves both teaching about us and teaching about others. As the figure shows, the two aspects of school curriculum are in fact opposite sides of the same coin, since they are working together to construct a shared national identity. Also, the double-headed arrows show that each of these constructs both influences and is influenced by the others. That is, without having both a curriculum about ‘us’ and a curriculum about ‘other,’ the politics of developing a national identity would be incomplete. 191 The formation of a national identity becomes possible by learning about who we are in relation to who we are not (the other). Here lies a final consequence of the curriculum of Othering: a national identity is acquired by opposing “us” with “others.” That is, we are able to secure a national cohesion by negating others. This finding gives us a significant reason for revising the curriculum about others so that it better fits in the global era. It shows that, whereas the world is rapidly interconnecting and students are more likely to encounter diverse cultures and peoples in their daily lives, teachers’ curriculum in this study is still based on the epistemological legacy of colonialism and the Cold War. Therefore, what we need to do is deconstruct the identity politics based on the opposition between us and them and envision new ways of engaging students with diverse cultures and peoples in the world. As Giroux argues (1992), we need a pedagogy of border- crossing which critically examines who established the boundary between us and them, how our imagination about people on the other side has been limited by the arbitrary wall, and how to deconstruct the epistemological gap between us and them. If the curriculum of Othering is based on the narrative of exclusion, we need to expand the horizon of “we” to include more global neighbors. Before exploring how to implement a curriculum of inclusion in teaching and teacher education, I will first show that the American students in this study are also concerned with the cultural stereotypes on them. As we will see, they want Korean teachers and students to consider similar things as I would ask American teachers and students to do in teaching and learning about Asia: deconstructing stereotypes and developing more complicated understandings. They were 192 concerned that Korean students would equate Americans and American cultures with how they have been portrayed in Hollywood movies and commercial cultures. Also, they want the Korean students to know more about ordinary Americans’ daily lives and cultures. How Students Want Their Country to Be Taught Towards the end of the Asia unit in each classroom, I had an opportunity to talk with the students about how they would like to introduce their country to Korean teachers and students. Barry gave me an hour so that I could have a discussion with the whole class, whereas Peggy preferred me to have a small- group conversation because she was worried about classroom management. In either case, I asked the students what and how they want their country to be taught in Korean classrooms. I gave them a couple of minutes to clarify their ideas, and gave a clean paper to each student to jot down their suggestions, which they submitted later on. I, then, opened up a free conversation, encouraging students to share their ideas. As result, I was able to generate such data as their memos, my field notes, and transcripts in case a conversation was recorded. Before going further, however, it needs to be cautioned that interpreting this data is more complicated than it appears to be. On the surface, it simply reveals how American students want their country to be addressed in Korean schools. However, students’ responses to my question are in fact intertwined with their view of their own country: what kind of a country is the US. and what is 193 important to know about the US. Students in the two classrooms are not likely to have similar positions on these issues, because they are largely different in terms of age, class, race, and community. For example, students in Barry’ classroom, who mostly came from affluent families, tended to respond that most Americans live a middle-class life style with “two cars, suburb family with a kid, and both or one of parents work.” This middle-class lifestyle is almost invisible in Peggy’s students who live in an urban area where the economy is crumbling down. Surprisingly, however, they seemed to have more positive outlook on their future, as they maintain the achievement ideology: if you work hard, you can make it (Macleod, 1995). They believed, as a student said, “we have an equal society. There are different races and we are all treated the same.” Another student followed, “Because some people want to work harder than others, and go to school longer, they get better jobs so they can make money.” It is ironic that, whereas these poor inner-city students held the belief that America is a land of equal opportunity, many of the rich students in Barry’s classroom were more critical about their own country. They pointed out that “not every one is rich,” and “we’re not equal.” Another student went further to insist, “Economically, other countries view us as a country where every one has a shot to get a job. But they don’t see how much we really have problems and we make them blind to the truth of our economy.” At times, the two groups of students provide seemingly similar responses, but the underlying reasoning is quite different. For example, one of the repeated notions in both classrooms was America helps other counties. One of Barry’s 194 students said, “America tries to help outwith other countries, like when tsunami happened. Celebrities start charities helping Africa and Darfur.” Many other students concur that Americans are concerned with poverty in other countries. Peggy’s students also believed that America helps other countries. They said that Americans have provided poor countries with products and resources and the American Red Cross helps people around the world. However, to my question of whether the American government spends enough money for the poor in the US, even though the two groups agreed that it’s not enough, their reasoning was quite different. According to one Barry’s students, one of the reasons that Americans do not want to spend much money for the poor in their country is “we don’t know what they are actually doing with the money, drug and alcohol addiction with homeless.” That is, more input for the poor can only be a waste of money, since they would use the money for drugs and alcohols. If this student held a deficit view on poor Americans, students in Peggy’s classroom had a different perspective. They believed that the American government spends too much money for unnecessary projects such as war and space programs. As a result, according to them, the government does not have enough money to help the poor in their country. Exploring what made these and other differences in students’ perception of their own country requires another thorough investigation, which goes beyond the interest of this study. It would suffice to say that, because of these differences, we need to be careful in interpreting students’ responses to how they want their country to be taught in the Korean curriculum. Indeed, despite these differences, 195 there are a few interesting similarities in their responses which have considerable implications in rethinking how to invite other cultures and societies into the school curriculum. To begin with, students wanted Korean teachers and students to have more diversified understandings about America, stressing that America is different from how it is portrayed in commercial films and dramas. Many students underlined that “America is not like the TV and movies that are out there. We aren’t like Hollywood,” “We are not like how actors portray America in the movies,” and “Not all African Americans carry guns.” This seems to be ironic, since, as we’ve seen, most of students’ images and perceptions about Asia came from popular culture and mass media. Whereas they perceived others through films and dramas, they were afraid if others see themselves through distorted images in commercial films and popular media. In particular, they seemed to be concerned with an image that Americans are rude and do not care others, as a few students stressed that “Americans pretend to be rude” but in fact they are nice people and just "joking and laughing.” This concern seemed to make them worried about the damaging effect of the recent Iraq War on the reputation of America. A few students said that, “We do not agree with the war in Iraq,” “Not everybody supports George Bush and the Iraq War.” Instead of commercial images and stereotypes, students wanted Korean teachers and students to have more complex understandings about their country. They stressed that America is a country of diversities not only in physical geography but also in race and culture. They said that the geography varies 196 greatly from place to place in America. Also, “We aren’t all just White. We have different ethnic backgrounds,” according to them. Another student followed, “Everyone does not have blue eyes and blonde hair. All look different.” These show that the American students in this study want people in other countries to deconstruct monolithic images about America and recognize the inner diversities and complexities among Americans. As for specific contents, even though a few students mentioned political and economic topics, most responses from both classrooms are related with their daily cultures and school lives. As a student summarized, students wanted to inform “what kind of sports we like, how we eat, what’s popular, and how we live.” They also wanted Korean peers to know that “The United States kids have to go through from preschool to elementary school—5th grade, then, middle school for 3 more years, and high school for another four years.” Another student said, “The stuff we do in USA is playing sports, visiting amusement parks, and we travel a lot. We play lots of video games even we know that sometimes we need to exercise.” With regard to daily cultures, students’ responses include; most American families are not very close with each other because they are very busy; fast food constitutes a big part of the American diet; people go to the mall, listen to music and play sports for their leisure time. As these illustrate, students wanted to give a more concrete sense of how their school life looks like and how ordinary Americans live their daily lives. Here we can see that these are in fact largely similar with what they wanted to know about Asians and Asian cultures. 197 That is, as they wanted to know about Asians’ daily lives and school days, they wanted Asian students to know about their daily lives and school days. These findings corroborate my argument that we need to go beyond the curriculum of Othering and rethink how to relate students with diverse cultures and peoples in the world. As I, a Korean, worry about Americans” misconceptions and cultural stereotypes about Asia, the American students in this study also worry about limited images and perceptions about Americans among Asians. As I want Americans to develop more humanistic and complicated understandings about Asia, American students want Korean teachers and students to do so, too. These similarities confirm that exploring alternatives ways to bring other cultures and societies into the school curriculum is not just in the hands of a few teachers in specific countries but has a more universal significance. 198 CHAPTER 7: IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING, TEACHER EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM STUDIES Previous chapters have examined various aspects of the curriculum about Asia in the two selected classrooms: when and how Asia was taught, what teachers’ goals were in teaching about Asia, and what teaching materials were used. Using the lens of cultural studies and postcolonialism, I also attempted to reveal socio—political and cultural assumptions underlying the curriculum about Asia, examining the consequence of it in terms of how students constructed knowledge and perceptions of Asia. In this final chapter, I explore practical and theoretical implications of this study for reinventing teaching about others in this globalizing world. I explore how teachers, teacher educators and curriculum scholars can contribute to deconstructing the curriculum of Othering, envisioning and implementing new ways of engaging students with people who appear to be different from them. In addressing this task, I will start with a brief summary of major findings of this study, as what I will propose in this chapter will draw from them. I first argued that the structure and sequence of the school curriculum is aligned with the dominant binary distinction between West and non-West, close and remote, and normal and abnormal. Asia and Africa, for instance, were located towards the end of the school year whereas the US. and Europe came earlier. This was to use Western standards and systems in making sense of Africa and Asia. As a result, the two continents were more likely to be marginalized in the curriculum, being perceived to be backwards, strange, and unfamiliar compared to Western 199 societies. I also examined the politics of selective and differentiated attention to Asia. I showed that different countries were represented with different images; some countries receiving more attention whereas others were marginalized. In addition, based on the idea that “Asia,” “Asian cultures” and “Asians” have a unique cultural signification in American society, I examined the perception of Asia as a whole in students” mind and teachers’ teaching and its connection with the wider social discourse on Asia. In terms of consequences of the two teachers’ teaching about Asia, what is notable was the contradiction between the announced goals and the implemented curriculum. Whereas the teachers intended to deconstruct the cultural misconceptions and stereotypes about Asia, their practices seem to have produced quite an opposite result: reproducing the stereotypical images about Asia. Examining what caused this discrepancy, I argued that a couple of factors were involved such as time constraint, a lack of teacher knowledge and experiences, the gap between what students are interested in and what teachers teach, and the influence from popular culture and mass media on students’ perceptions and teachers’ teaching about Asia. Based on this analysis, I concluded that the curriculum about Asia in the two classrooms became a curriculum of Othering, which is lilely to perpetuate the colonial framework in recognizing non-Western cultures and societies. Considering these findings, the major task of reinventing the curriculum about others would be getting rid of the asymmetric distinction between “us” and “them,” extending the horizon of “us” to include more global neighbors who live in 200 other cultures and societies. In a sense, this is to help teachers implement a curriculum which is more consistent with their intended goals. We saw that there is a disconnection between the professed goals and their practices among the teachers in this study. Therefore, a new approach to global curriculum should enable teachers to better achieve their goals, having students intellectually engaged with people in other cultures and societies. For this, I believe teachers should be a cultural mediator betweens students and diverse cultures and peoples in the world. They should be able to move across different cultures and societies and bring them into classrooms without losing their complexities and dynamics, helping students rethink potential biases and misconceptions in their perceptions. Teachers should allow diverse peoples to be heard with their own voices, creating a dialogic space where students can develop open-mindedness and humanistic understandings of others by being involved in cross-cultural settings. I believe this transition from a curriculum of Othering to a curriculum of mediation cannot be achieved by a few people and by a few technical changes. Rather, it requires a fundamental rethinking of the nature and purpose of the curriculum about others and a close collaboration among those involved in developing and implementing school curriculum. In the following pages, I propose how teachers, teacher educators and curriculum scholars can contribute to reinventing the curriculum about others to be more globally relevant. In doing this, I will not just focus on how to better teach about Asia but explore more general implications for revising teaching about others within a global context. This is because my intention in this study is not to 201 insist that teachers pay more attention to Asia, but to provide opportunities for educators to revisit how to bring other cultures and peoples into school curriculum. What’s the point of revising the curriculum about Asia in the end, if it results in marginalization of other parts of the world? How Teachers Can Be Cultural Mediators? The two teachers in this study seem to provide useful implications for other teachers to be cultural mediators between students and global neighbors. First of all, considering that both Peggy and Barry were struggling with time constraint, the first issue we need to consider is how teachers can develop a globally relevant curriculum within this institutional condition. Indeed, as a teacher in Merryfield’s (1994) study says, the lack of time is an obstacle for many other teachers in engaging students with other cultures: “My students think anyone different from them is strange, bad or just plain wrong. I have to begin by developing a tolerance of difference. That process alone takes more than one school year.” As this teacher says, developing an open-mind toward unfamiliar cultures often takes a long time which is not available to most teachers. This is even more problematic within the marginalization of social studies and global curriculum under the recent rhetoric of educational accountability based on test scores on selected subject areas (Heafner, 2008; VanFossen, 2005). The overemphasis on reading and math has made schools and students inattentive to social studies which has been already marginalized. Barry said, for instance, that some of his students came to his class just to take a break, which forced him to 202 provide a less demanding but more fun curriculum. Peggy was also frustrated by the district’s and the principal’s inattention to social studies: They don't pay attention to social studies. They think social studies textbooks can be 9 and 10 years old. To them, they say, “What changes?” It just boggles my mind. To them anyone can teach it, that’s their philosophy number one. So it used to be the class that all the coaches taught. You open a book. You read X amount of pages in class. You answer X amount of questions at the end and then you have these reports once a marking period. My lord! And there was nothing global, nothing current, and nothing that gives students a sense of reality. Considering these institutional challenges, it seems to be unfair to blame Barry and Peggy for their failure of achieving their teaching goals. Rather, what is necessary is more efforts from policy-makers and school staffs to enhance the significance of social studies, especially that of preparing students to be responsible and informed global citizens. However, it is also true that more time does not always result in a better curriculum. We’ve seen that, even though Peggy had almost twice the amount of time than Barry, she spent much of the time doing simple and didactic worksheets instead of engaging students with intellectual and meaningful curriculum. It should be noted here once again that I am not asking teachers to save more time for the Asia unit. How much time to allocate for each unit is to be decided by teachers based on their consideration of institutional and pedagogical contexts. Especially, if spending more time on Asia 203 makes other continents marginalized, it would not help students develop a balanced understanding of global cultures and peoples. With regard to the direction of curriculum change in given conditions, James Banks’ distinction between transfonnative and additive approach to multicultural education seems to provide a useful insight (Banks, 1998, 2002). The additive multicultural education, according to him, is merely adding new cultural concepts, themes, and content without disrupting the dominant, often Western-centered perspective on diverse cultures. In contrast, the transformative approach attempts to engage students more deeply with diverse voices and cultures so that they can walk in the shoes of cultural minorities and interrogate the potential limits of cultural assumptions in their minds and in the wider society. Similarly, I believe teachers should go beyond an additive approach in teaching about other cultures and societies. Simple addition of more time, new contents and teaching resources without troubling the prevalent sense-making system would further alienate students from global neighbors. Rather, what seems to be more necessary is a transformative approach, which engages students more deeply with diverse cultures and peoples in the world. Teachers may provide learning opportunities through which students can critically reflect on their current assumptions about others and develop new perceptions. In this sense, a global curriculum is not just learning about others but also learning about us, troubling our assumptions and belief systems about them. Within this overarching theme of the transformative global education, I propose four suggestions that teachers may consider in revising their global curriculum. 204 First, teachers need to keep improving their knowledge and understandings of peoples and societies that they address in their curriculum. It seems to be obvious that, the more teachers know about certain cultures and societies, the more likely they are to convey an engaging curriculum about them. We saw, for example, that Barry felt more comfortable and purposeful in teaching about Latin America because of his knowledge background and personal connections. He was also more sensitive to cultural biases and misconceptions of Latin America, since he is more likely to recognize them through his experiences. In contrast, Peggy, who appeared to have little knowledge of Latin America, had a strong negative perception of Hispanics, accusing them of being social ills. In particular, it seems to be important that teachers expand their knowledge of relatively marginalized areas including Asia, Africa or Latin America. We remember that Barry confessed his lack of knowledge of Asia. This is not his individual problem, however. A survey of 5,000 teachers conducted by the National Commission on Asia in the Schools shows that less than five percent of the participant teachers felt they had substantial knowledge of Asia, and only 25 percent had ever taken a course on any aspect of Asia (Barker, 2000). It is not surprising that most teachers said this lack of knowledge made them feel uncomfortable teaching about Asia. Therefore, the first step for teachers to better mediate students with other cultures is enhancing their knowledge background of world regions and cultures. They might educate themselves about political, cultural/social, economic, and environment issues in light of both domestic and 205 global contexts (Merryfield 8 White, 1996). Teachers also need to understand the history of interaction between the West and the non-West, exploring how the interaction has created differentiated impacts on various parts of the world, and how it is related with the currentdomestic situations in countries once colonized. Second, it seems to be necessary that teachers keep engaging themselves in cross-cultural experiences and communication. As I noted earlier, learning about others is not just expanding knowledge and information about them. It also includes a critical reflection of the dominant perception in our minds. For this reason, in addition to knowledge background, intellectual and emotional dispositions such as open-mindedness, perspective consciousness, non- chauvinism, and inclination to empathy has been emphasized as a core of global competency (Begler, 1993; Case, 1993; Hanvey, 1976; Merryfield, 2001). In particular, considering that nobody could have complete knowledge of various cultures in the world and complex global issues, habits of intellectual inquiry and dispositions that will lead teachers to continually update their knowledge is crucial for global education (Begler, 1993). To develop these habits and dispositions, scholars suggest that teachers keep cross-cultural immersion and contacts (Begler, 1993; Flournoy, 1993; Merryfield, 2000). Begler ( 1993) argues, for example, that teachers who have experienced another culture are more likely to find ways in their daily instruction to teach local/global interconnectedness and perspective consciousness to their students. Emphasizing that global competence involves the whole person not just the intellect, F Iournoy ( 1993) also stresses the importance of personal 206 acquaintance of other cultures and confrontation with diverse points of view. However, teachers do not have to go overseas to have these kinds of experiences and acquire cross-cultural communication skills. They can join or organize global events in their communities which engage diverse peoples from different countries and cultures. Teachers can immerse themselves in situations where there are racial and cultural minorities in locals so that they better understand the challenges the minorities face. Through these experiences, they can develop global dispositions and cross cultural-awareness without going overseas. Third, to develop a transformative global curriculum, teachers might consider incorporating media literacy as part of their curriculum. We saw that Barry and Peggy often depended on popular culture and mass media without scrutiny, which allowed commercial images to dominate their classroom even unknowingly. The uncritical use of popular culture seems to be a major reason causing their personal goals to be forgotten in their practice. Whereas Barry and Peggy intended to develop more complicated and humanistic understandings of Asia, students were too easily absorbed into distorted and unrealistic images from popular cultures. Removing audio-visual materials from a global curriculum, however, may not be the best decision. This is not only because there are useful media resources, but also because the elimination of media resources would make students disengaged in their learning. As Barry said, students these days are heavily exposed to various types of audiovisual materials in their daily lives. 207 They are visual learners and it is inevitable that teachers use more or less media resources in their teaching. Therefore, what seems to be more important for teachers to think about is how to use media texts meaningfully and intellectually than whether to use them or not. Considering the heavy media influence on contemporary lives, there have been efforts to incorporate critical media literacy in school curriculum (Russell III, 2003; Sperry, 2006; Werner, 2002). In particular, teachers need to help students to be a critical examiner of the media representation, not just a passive consumer of it. In analyzing the media representation, Werner (2002) argues that teachers have students examine such questions as: (1) representation (What is said from where, and how is it said?) (2) gaze (What gaze is implicit within this text?) (3) voice (Whose voice is dominant?) (4) intertextuality (How are various sub-texts such as pictures, labels, questions, or charts brought together to construct a complex representational system?) (5) absence (What is absent from a text? Whose interests or what purposes may be served by this absence or exclusion?) More recently, Sperry (2006) provides useful tools in decoding underlying messages of the media representation. As a high school social studies teacher, Sperry (2006) encourages students to ask such questions as; 1. Who made and who sponsored this message? What is their purpose? 2. Who is the target audience? And how is the message tailored to that audience? 3. What techniques are used to inform, persuade, entertain, and attract attention? 208 4. What messages are communicated (or implied) about certain people, places, events behaviors, lifestyles, etc.? 5. How current, accurate, and credible is the information in this message? 6. What is left out of this message that might be important to know? Fourth, to help students develop more complicated and humanistic understandings of others, it may be effective to make use of more lively and diverse resources such as guest speakers and global/multicultural resources. Note the student in Barry’s classroom who said in an interview that my presence had changed her perceptions of Asians. If her previous perceptions of Asians had primarily originated from the media representation, now she had a personal contact with a “real” Asian through whom she might realize the limitation of the media images. Indeed, personal interactions have been pointed out to be vital in expanding students’ knowledge and understandings of other peoples and cultures. Especially, guest speakers can provide students with direct encounters with people from different cultural backgrounds and traditions (Haakenson, Saukova, 8 Mason, 1999). Guest speakers in Barry’s classroom, for example, were able to provide students with perspectives and experiences which other resources could not provide. By inviting guest speakers, teachers may help students deconstruct cultural misconceptions and develop more concrete and complicated understandings of peoples and cultures which students have not personally encountered. For example, if Peggy had had a guest speaker who has a deeper understanding of the one-child policy, students could have developed a more balanced understanding of China. 209 In addition, teachers may use more narrative resources representing stories and experiences of ordinary people. One of the reasons that the students in this study felt they did not learn much about Asia was because they did not have opportunities to be engaged with ordinary Asians: their daily lives, emotions and concerns. What teachers often used was national data and international politics, which created a gap between their teaching and students’ interest. To remove this gap, teachers may use more lively and diverse resources such as narratives, testimonies, biographies, stories, and novels. These narrative resources can transform abstract concepts and words into quasi-lived experiences that students may retain long after their class is over (Felman, 1992). If using narrative resources is not possible because of time constraint, teachers may develop an integrated curriculum, e.g., between social studies and English. In this collaboration, social studies teachers can provide geographic knowledge, current issues and trends, while English teachers have students read narrative resources connected with what students learn in the social studies class. Before I move to the implications for teacher education, it needs to be remembered that teaching resources in and of themselves do not create a globally relevant curriculum. As commercial cultures perpetuate cultural bias and misconceptions, guest speakers may also bring simplified and limited perspectives. This is also true of narrative resources, as they convey individual experiences and interpretation which is often determined by one”s location and position. As such, more emphasis should be put on open-ended inquiry of certain cultures and societies instead of depending on a few teaching resources. In any 210 case, it is important to maintain that understanding a culture is an intellectual task which requires multiple data sources and often takes a long journey. Implications for Teacher Education The preparation to be a cultural mediator should start from teacher education programs. Indeed, from the early 19908, there has been a growing voice that teacher educators infuse more global elements into programs (Flournoy, 1993; Haakenson, Savukova 8 Mason, 1999; Kirkwood, 2001b; Merryfield, 1992, 1994, 1997, 2000). These scholars argue that, while the world is rapidly changing and schools are increasingly becoming a cross/multicultural place, teacher educators have not paid enough attention to preparing teachers to be globally competent. Merryfield (1994), for example, illustrates that only five percent of the nation’s K-12 teachers had any academic preparation in global studies. More recently, reviewing literature on social studies methods course, Hong and Adler (2008, in press) conclude that preparing teachers to teach global knowledge and perspectives is still marginalized in the social studies teacher education. To overcome the gap between the growing social demand and the lack of appropriate teacher preparation, teacher educators should make their programs more globally respOnsive. Based on major findings of this study and proposals from other global educators (Case, 1993; Gaudelli, 2003; Heilman, 2006; Kirkwood, 2001b; Merryfield 8 White, 1996), I provide three suggestions that teacher educators may consider in globalizing their programs: global content, cross/multicultural experiences and instructional strategies. Some of these will 211 overlap with what I proposed for teachers, even though the degree may be different. First, teacher educators need to include more global knowledge and inquiry into their programs. As Merryfield (2001) argues, to be globally competent, it is important that future teachers acquire basic knowledge of world regional and global issues, conflicts, and diverse aspects and unequal impacts of globalization. In organizing global knowledge in teacher education programs, Case (1993) provides a useful distinction between a substantive dimension and a perceptual dimension. According to him, the substantive dimension of global knowledge includes information of various features of the world, including knowledge of global politics and economics, global challenges, world cultures, and migration. However, he argues that simply putting more about the world into teacher education does not make for global teaching. Accordingly, Case (1993) argues that what is as important as substantive knowledge in global education is acquiring the perceptual dimension such as tolerance, open-mindedness and multiple perspectives. Major findings of this study support that both dimensions of global knowledge are required in teacher education programs. Especially, future teachers should be encouraged to expand their knowledge in areas and issues in which they lack knowledge. We saw that Barry and Peggy lack knowledge of certain areas and cultures, which influenced their curriculum. Considering their tight schedule and demanding work-load, it may be more difficult for in-service teachers to improve their content knowledge. Therefore, teacher educators need 212 a systematic effort to incorporate more global knowledge into their curriculum. They may work with disciplinary departments to enhance preservice teachers’ academic knowledge of world geography, cultures, global economics, and the history of international relations.AThey can also find ways to work with schools and school districts to infuse more global content into school curriculum. However, it should be noted that perceptual dimension of global knowledge is as important as substantive knowledge (Kirkwood, 2001b). Especially, prospective teachers need to be encouraged to critically investigate the dominant cultural and ideological frameworks and their influence on the school curriculum. As we saw, contrary to their intention, Barry and Peggy tended to maintain the prevalent social perceptions of Asians and Asian cultures instead of developing open-mindedness and cross-cultural tolerance. This seems to have occurred since they did not have enough opportunities to examine how their identity and curriculum had been unknowingly influenced by prevalent social perceptions. Putting more content knowledge without a critical reflection of the current sense-making system would not change the way teachers engage students with other cultures and societies. Therefore, in addition to expanding substantive global knowledge, it is also important that preservice teachers critically interrogate how cultural others are constructed by the dominant representation system. By examining how their emotional and behavioral responses to other peoples and cultures have been shaped by the social construction, preservice teachers are more likely to notice the arbitrariness of 213 their current beliefs and develop a complicated and informed understanding of others. Second, cross-cultural experiences and experiential Ieaming could be integrated into teacher education programs. I already argued that classroom teachers should use cross-cultural engagements to extend their cultural horizon and develop global dispositions. For the same reason, scholars have pointed out the significance of cross-cultural experiences in teacher education programs (Haakenson, Saukova 8 Mason, 1999; Merryfield, 1994, 1997, 2000). Interviewing 120 in-service teachers who had attended teacher education programs which had global components, Merryfield (1994) found that they highly valued experiential learning opportunities provided in their preservice training programs. In another research, Merryfield (2000) found that teacher educators who had experienced disorientation, confusion, and discomfort in multicultural situations were more likely to employ global diversity, justice and interconnection in their teaching. Participants in her study said that experiences of being minorities and feeling contradictions among different positions made them realize the importance of breaking down cultural stereotypes and opening their minds to multiple perspectives. Again, this does not mean that prospective teachers have to be sent overseas, paying an expensive cost. As Wilson (1997) argues, there are multiples ways to engage preservice teachers in cross-cultural settings. For example, she has paired her students in a secondary socials studies methods course with international students in the college from various parts of the world. 214 Based on almost two decades of experiences, Wilson (1997) concludes that her conversation partner program has helped her students gain both substantive and perceptual dimension of global knowledge: they acquire more knowledge about another culture, being less ethnocentric and more opened to cultural diversities. As this illustrates, by making use of local resources, teacher educators can make cross-cultural experiences accessible to more students without additional cost. Another point to keep in mind is that simply throwing students into cross-cultural situations does not create the learning experiences intended by teacher educators. It is important that students’ experiences are thoughtfully connected with other reflective activities such as classroom discussion, journal writing, and analysis of changes in students’ knowledge and attitudes. In particular, it needs to be ensured that students should not essentialize the whole culture or society through a handful of experiences with a few persons. In any case, the purpose of cross-cultural experiences is not substituting one bias with another, but recognizing the very danger of cultural simplification. Finally, teacher educators are required to develop concrete instructional strategies prospective teachers can use in their classrooms. If global education requires new knowledge and dispositions, it also necessitates pedagogical models relevant for developing such knowledge and dispositions in K-12 classrooms. It has been argued that globally oriented teachers tend to adopt constructive and experiential learning instead of traditional, rote pedagogy and teacher—centered instruction (Byrnes, 1997; Gaudelli, 2003). For example, based on classroom observation, Merryfield (1998) illustrates that global teachers tend 215 to use more student-centered Ieaming and multidisciplinary approach. Considering this and other related studies (Heilman, 2006; Kirkwood, 2001b; Merryfield, 2002), three elements seem to be important in developing the pedagogy of global education: multiple-thinking, multi-disciplinary learning and self-inquiry. First, global educators stress pedagogical approaches which encourage multiple thinking about global issues and cross-cultural phenomena. They emphasize that students recognize what they believe to be true and natural may not be universally shared, and other people can have different ideas and beliefs (Case, 1993; Kirkwood, 2001a; Kniep, 1986). Without recognizing this multiplicity, students might have difficulty in communicating with people who have different belief systems and cultural norms. For this reason, Merryfield (1998) argues that the most significant characteristic among global teachers is “the emphasis on multiple perspectives, perspective consciousness, multiple realities and multiple loyalties” (p. 365). Accordingly, it is necessary that teacher educators develop pedagogical strategies which encourage learners to acquire a habit of seeing an issue from multiple perspectives and diverse positions. Second, it has been argued that teacher educators develop pedagogical approaches which stimulate interdisciplinary learning about global issues and challenges (Byrnes, 1997; Gaudelli, 2003). Many global issues are complex, requiring multidisciplinary inquiry. For example, the issue of illegal immigrants cannot be fully comprehended without historical, political, cultural, economic, and religious considerations. Also, the global environmental change is not limited to a 216 specific discipline, but requires crossdisciplinary learning that includes earth science, international relations, culture, geography, and/or history. Therefore, instead of maintaining traditional disciplinary divisions, a broader multidisciplinary approach is required in the instruction of a global curriculum. Third, an open-inquiry and experiential learning directed by students has been recommended as a useful pedagogy. As topics In global education are often complicated, teachers and students may not get a clear-cut answer in a short period of time. In many cases, investigating global issues and interconnections requires multiple capacities and self-directed inquiry. Therefore, instead of depending on a single source or given answers, global educators Insist that students perform self-inquires, collecting, comparing, and synthesizing multiple sources of information and data (Byrnes, 1997; Gaudelli, 2003; Heilman, 2006). In addition, participatory pedagogies such as such as simulation, role-play, discussion, and critical analysis of media have been proposed as relevant for developing global dispositions and multicultural understandings (Bigelow 8 Peterson, 2002). What seems to be crucial to concretize these pedagogical suggestions is the close collaboration between classroom teachers and teacher educators. Teacher educators can provide pedagogical ideas and resources to classroom teachers. The latter, in turn, may give feedback to teacher educators, experimenting with what is applicable and what is not in specific teaching situations. Also, the two sides can co-teach K-12 classrooms and find relevant pedagogies for enhancing global thinking and inquiry. Finally, teacher educators 217 may use these classrooms as an exemplary location where prospective teachers can observe global instruction and develop their own pedagogical ideas. In any case, pedagogical ideas for global education need to be cross-checked through the cooperation between teacher educators and classroom teachers, which would benefit prospective teachers in the end. Implications for Curriculum Studies In addition to teachers and teacher educators, this study also provides some significant insights to the direction of curriculum studies in the global age. Especially, the two theoretical lenses, cultural studies and postcolonialism, used in this study seem to help consolidate the shaky foundation of global education which has recently emerged as a systematic response to globalization. As we’ve seen, global educators interpret globalization as a new environment which requires a deconstruction of the traditional state-centered and ethnocentric framework in making sense of the world (Gaudelli, 2003; Lamy, 1991; Pike, 2000). They insist that educators should enhance global perspectives and citizenship, exploring new ways of engaging students with people who belong to different countries and cultural traditions. However, as we saw in Chapter 1, there exist opposite interpretations of global realities, demanding schools be reformed following the market model and teachers enhance national cohesion and cultural patriotism. Unfortunately, what seems to be more dominant in reality among contending voices are those of neoliberalists and neoconservatives. 218 First of all, we observe that global educators’ contention is often dominated by the rampant neoliberalism and the free-market ideology which now exert almost an absolute power internationally and domestically. To many people in non-Western countries, globalization often means another pressure from the former colonizers to follow Western rules and economic standards so that Western-based corporations can maximize their interest. It became a matter of survival in many countries to give up their traditional life styles and values and adopt Western styles and standards. They were also forced to reduce or remove trade barriers to facilitate a free circulation of global capital, goods, and services (Held 8 McGrew, 2002; Sassen, 1996; Steger, 2003). International economic agencies such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank have been said to play a key role in changing the economic system of developing countries to follow Western models: reducing public expenditure, Iiberalizing financial market and trade, privatizing state enterprises, and deregulating labor markets (Sachs, 2002; Steger, 2003; Stiglitz, 2006). If a country tries to regulate the unfettered global capitalism and resist the Western-centered world system, it will be quickly penalized in one way or another by global economic agents (Bacchus, 2006). If this is the case, there seems to be emerging a new colonialism which is based on global capitalism and Western cultural standards. Even though it does not depend on military tools and direct controls used during the older colonial period, it still produces the same results in that it makes the non-Western countries dependent on the Western world and widens the gap 219 between rich and poor countries (Bigelow 8 Peterson, 2002; Loomba, 2005; Young, 2001) Domestically, the market ideology is invading into various social institutions including public schools, enforcing them to follow the business models and prove cost-benefit efficiency (Apple, 1993; Aronowitz 8 Giroux, 1993; McLaren 8 Farahmandpur, 2001). We’ve observed the strong emphasis on accountability based on a narrow definition of Ieaming—scores on standardized tests. It is, however, just one aspect of the reform drive that tries to reorganize public schools and other public sectors according to the free-market ideology (McLaren 8 Farahmandpur, 2001). There is also a discourse of privatization, consumers’ choice, productivity, and efficiency, all of which now push schools to adopt corporate models. Teachers are now required to prove their accountability by improving student test scores in specific subject areas, neglecting other responsibilities teachers have taken so far as public intellectuals, e.g., enhancing citizenship and providing culturally and racially responsive teaching. Along with the market-based reform drive, another challenge that teachers face during these days is the standardization of school curriculum. If the accountability movement reflects the neoliberal discourse that schools provide an internationally competitive labor force, Apple (1993, 2001) argues that the standardization movement reflects a resurgence of the neoconservative political discourse; reestablishment of cultural patriotism and national identity. It sounds ironic that, while there is an emphasis on the free flow of money, ideas, and goods, there is also a growing concern to maintain national identity and 220 belongingness. According to Apple ( 1993), however, these two apparently contradictory demands are in fact different sides of the same ideological manipulation: ...What is striking about the rightist coalition’s policies is its capacity to connect the emphasis on traditional knowledge and values, authority, standards, and national identity of the neoconservatives with the emphasis on the extension of market-driven principles into all areas of society advocated by neoliberals. Thus, a national curriculum—coupled with rigorous national standards any a system of testing that is performance- driven—is able at one and the same time to be aimed at “modernizing” of the curriculum and the efficient “production” of better “human capital” and represent a nostalgic yearning for a romanticized past. (p. 230) In this ideological environment, global educators’ emphasis on global awareness and responsibilities has been attacked by neoconservatives as an attempt to promote cultural relativism and question the authority of the nation- state (for example, see Burack, 2003). They insist that teachers base their curriculum on a clear boundary between us and them and on a zero-sum approach to international affairs. As a result, the epistemology of Othering and the discourse of resentment against other peoples and cultures are still maintained and even strengthened in this global era. Indeed, this study shows that the two teachers’ curriculum about Asia was dominated by neoconservative and neoliberal concerns, which made their original teaching goals invisible in practice. Both teachers, for example, held a 221 neoliberal perspective in teaching about China, portraying China as a politically and economically threatening country to the US, whereas the two sides are in fact interrelated much more complicatedly. We also saw that Peggy had a strong neoconservative position, maintaining an ethnocentric approach to American cultural identity. This made her isolate some of her students from their cultural backgrounds instead of helping them develop a healthy cultural identity. Barry was also influenced by the neoconservative drive which now dominates the reform agenda of public schools. As the state implements new social studies content standards which focus more on the US, Barry was being forced to minimize his curriculum about global cultures and peoples. As these illustrate, neoconservative and neoliberal concerns easily dominate many aspects of public schools, marginalizing global knowledge and dispositions from teachers’ attention. I believe a significant role that curriculum scholars play in this environment is developing a counter-discourse against the neoliberal and neoconservatives’ manipulation of globalization. To prevent the revival of colonial concerns, they are required to support global educators who insist that what humans really need in this global era is global collaboration and cross-cultural tolerance. For this, I believe curriculum scholars should pay more attention to investigating how other peoples and cultures are taught in school; what kinds of knowledge and notions about specific cultures and societies are produced; how students are positioned with regard to other peoples and cultures; how the curriculum about others is aligned or‘at odds with dominant social perceptions. Investigating these topics 222 would help them deconstruct the legacy of colonial epistemology still remaining in various aspects of school curriculum. Based on this examination, they can support theoretical and practical efforts to develop alternative, more democratic and humanistic ways of engaging students with diverse peoples and cultures in the world. I believe curriculum scholars should contribute to making the changing global environment to be a true momentum of postcolonial in its original sense— a world free from colonialism whether it be physical or ideological. In addressing these topics, cultural studies and postcolonialism, theoretical lenses employed in this study, seem to be helpful. Cultural studies helps a researcher examine the curriculum about others not just as a pedagogical text but also as a cultural text. It helps to disclose the cultural framework underlying the curriculum about others, revealing the arbitrariness of the dominant representational system. As Barthes (1998) points out, if the essential function of the dominant discourse is turning the current representation of others into nature and making itself given and innocent, cultural studies attempts to denaturalize it by troubling the underlying power and ideology. The other lens, postcolonialism, specifies what kinds of ideological and cultural concerns are especially problematic in teaching and learning about other cultures and societies. It argues that, as long as the colonial framework in recognizing the world remains in school curriculum and in wider society, colonialism is not really over (Willinsky, 1999). Following this contention, another task of curriculum scholars in this globalizing world is decolonizing the curriculum about others (Merryfield, 2001). They need to interrogate the colonial legacy in teaching and 223 learning about others, exploring non-colonial, more equitable and humanistic ways of engaging students with people who have different cultural norms, beliefs and value systems. Indeed, there have been'attempts to investigate school curriculum as cultural practice and explore postcolonial supplement to deconstruct the colonial message in school curriculum (Hurren, 2000; Kanu, 2006). However, as Kanu (2006) points out, the task that Said raised almost thirty years ago has just become receiving attention from curriculums studies; how one can study other cultures and peoples from a libertarian, or a non-repressive and non- manipulative perspective” (Said, 1978, p. 24). By investigating how Asia is taught in American classrooms, this study attempted to join the effort of revealing the colonial legacy in the curriculum about others, exploring an alternative, postcolonial invitation of other cultures and societies into school curriculum. Given that this study focuses on the treatment of Asia in American classrooms, some may get a sense that the major contentions of this study only apply to American, or Western curriculum about the non-Western world. This claim is partly true, since it is undeniable that the latter has been victimized by the Westerners’ cultural biases and misunderstandings. However, in many cases, racial bias is a more universal, not limited in the Westerners’ recognition of others. The ironic phenomenon of growing nationalism and cultural patriotism in the stream of globalization is not just a matter of America, but can be observed in many parts of the world, too (Volf, 1996). Unfortunately, there seems to be world- wide stream to reinforce cultural borders and manipulate resentments against 224 people outside the national borders (McCarthy 8 Dimitriadis, 2000). Therefore, I believe rethinking the curriculum about others in a global world is not in the hands of curriculum scholars in specific countries but has a global significance. It requires more attention and participation from scholars in various parts of the world, who believe in the importance of global mindedness and cross-cultural communication. 225 Appendices 226 APPENDIX A Teacher Pre-interview Protocol . Could you tell me something about yourself and your class? How long have you been teaching? Does your teaching normally include a unit on (East) Asia? How much do you think kids are interested in (East) Asia and the issues you address here? . Do you have any specific goals or objectives that you would like to accomplish through your teaching about Asia? What do you want students to know or realize through your teaching about Asians and Asian cultures? . As you see, globalization is a key word inside and outside schools these days. What do you think about the process of globalization? What do you think students need to learn in a global world? . Could you let me know how your ideas on the previous question reflect on your teaching of Asia? In other words, how you try to teach knowledge and dispositions that students need to have in a global world through your unit on East Asia? . What are the major obstacles or difficulties in accomplishing your goals in the unit on Asia? In other words, what kind of challenges do you feel when you plan or implement your lessons on Asia? . In planning their lessons, many teachers are known to refer curriculum standards, mass media, textbooks, popular culture and so on. How about you? Where do you get your ideas on how and what to teach about Asia? . Could you describe the structure and time line of your unit on Asia? How much time is available for you to teach about Asia? How do you use that time? What kind of topics do you usually address? Why? . Could you describe major activities, learning materials or assignments that you are going to use during your unit? . Do you feel any differences between what you want students to know about Asia and Asian cultures and what the students bring into your classroom? As we know, students do not come to school with an empty mind, but they already have certain images and perceptions of Asia. What kind of perceptions and images do you think students bring into your classrooms? Do you see any difference between them and your point of teaching about Asia? 227 APPENDIX B Student Pre-survey Tool This survey is asking you questions about East Asia. East Asia usually includes China, Japan, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea and Taiwan. Your answers will be used as valuable data for my dissertation research. This will take about 15-20 minutes and your answers will not be used for any other purpose than the dissertation research. 1. Please, list 5 things that come to your mind when you hear the word “Asia.” 2. Why, if at all, do you think it is important to learn about Asia or East Asia in US classrooms? 228 3. Please, circle the country which you think is most important to the United States and explain below why you chose that country. China Japan Mongolia North Korea South Korea Taiwan Whv Cficj vog choose this cogntrv? 4. Please, circle a country that you would most like to visit, explain why, and what you would like to do there if you had the chance to visit that country. China Japan Mongolia North Korea South Korea Taiwan Whvgi_d you choose that cogntrv? What wogld voufilike to dfo there? 229 5. Please, write 3-5 things that you know, believe or associate with each country or its people? Lam Mongolia 230 M18188; §9_ut_h_l$2r_e_a; 231 6. Please check the answer that best explains how you feel about each of the following, or give your own explanation: 6-1. I am familiar with Asian cultures 1) Very much 2) Somewhat ' 3) A little 4) Not at all 5) Don’t know or not sure 6) Your own explanation: 6-2. Asians and Asian cultures are difficult to understand and they are different from us 1) Very much 2) Somewhat 3) A little 4) Not at all 5) Don’t know or not sure 6) Your own explanation: 6-3. I would like to have more Asian friends 1) Very much 2) Somewhat 3) A little 4) Not at all 5) Don’t know or not sure 6) Your own explanation: 64 Asian countries are helpful to US. 1) Very much 2) Somewhat 3) A little 4) Not at all 5) Don’t know or not sure 6) Your own explanation: 232 6-5. The US has supported Asian countries economically and politically 1) Very much 2) Somewhat 3) A little 4) Not at all 5) Don’t know or not sure 6) Your own explanation: 6-6. I think it’s important to know more about Asia and Asian cultures 1) Very much 2) Somewhat 3) A little 4) Not at all 5) Don’t know or not sure 6) Your own explanation: 7. Can you think of 3-4 movies. TV shows, stars or characters that you associate with Asian countries? 8. Can you think of 3-4 books, comics. websites, video games or songs that you associate with Asian countries? 233 9. Please, list 3—5 things that you would like to learn more about Asia, Asians or Asian cultures? 10. Can you think of 34 recent news items or events related to Asian countries? Thank you 234 APPENDIX C Student Post-survey Tool This survey is asking you questions about East Asia. East Asia usually includes China, Japan, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea and Taiwan. Your answers will be used as valuable data fOr my dissertation research. This will take about 15-20 minutes and your answers will not be used for any other purpose than the dissertation research. 1. Please, list 5 things or more that you have learned about “Asia” in your class. Could you circle 3 things that you think particularly important to know about Asia and explain why? 2. Please, list 5 things or more that you have learned about “East Asia” in your class. Could you circle 3 things that you think particularly important to know about East Asia and explain why? 235 3. Please, circle the country which you think is most important to the United States and explain below why you chose that country. China Japan Mongolia North Korea South Korea Taiwan Why did v0L_r choose this cogntnr? If this cogntryisdifferent from what yog chose in the previous sgrvev. what made you change your mind? 4. Please, circle a country that you would most like to visit, explain why, and what you would like to do there if you had the chance to visit that country. China Japan Mongolia North Korea South Korea Taiwan Whv did you choose thaLt countrv? 236 What wow vog like to Q there? If this country is different from what vomose in thflreviogs survey. what made vog change your mincfi 5. Please, write 3-5 things that you have learned about each country in your class. Could you circle 2-3 things that you think particularly important to know about each country and explain why? China: 237 Jana—n: @2993 238 North Korea; South Korea: 239 6. Please check the answer that best explains how you feel about each of the following and briefly explain why: 6-1. I am familiar with Asian cultures 1) Very much 2) Somewhat 3) A little 4) Not at all 5) Don’t know or not sure * Why do you think so? 6-2. Asians and Asian cultures are different from us and they are difficult to understand 1) Very much 2) Somewhat 3) A little 4) Not at all 5) Don’t know or not sure * Why do you think so? 6-3. I would like to have more Asian friends 1) Very much 2) Somewhat 3) A little 4) Not at all 5) Don’t know or not sure * Why do you think so? 64. Asian countries are helpful to US. 1) Very much 2) Somewhat 3) A little 4) Not at all 5) Don’t know or not sure * Why do you think so? 240 6-5. The US has supported Asian countries economically and politically 1) Very much 2) Somewhat 3) A little 4) Not at all 5) Don’t know or not sure * Why do you think so? 6-6. I think it’s important to know more about Asia and Asian cultures 1) Very much 2) Somewhat 3) A little 4) Not at all 5) Don’t know or not sure * Why do you think so? 7. Please, list 3-5 things or more that you would like to learn further about Asia, Asians or Asian cultures? Why do you want to learn about them? Thank you 241 References 242 REFERENCES Adler, S. A. 8 Confer, B. J. (1998). A practical inquiry: Influencing preservice teachers’ beliefs toward diversity and democracy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 28—30. Alger, C. E., 8 Harf, J. E. (1986). Global education: Why? for whom? about what? In R. E. Freeman (Ed.), Promising practices in global education: A handbook with case studies (pp. 1-13). New York: The National Council on Foreign Language and International Studies. American Council on Education (1998). Educating for global competence; America’s passport to the future. Washington DC: Commission on International Education. Anderson, L. F. (1991). A rationale for global education. In K. A. Tye, (Ed.), Global education from thought to action. The 1991 ASCD Yearbook (pp. 13-34). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Angell, A. V. (1998). Learning to teach social studies: A case study of belief restructuring. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(4), 509-29. Anyon, J. (2001). Inner cities, affluent suburbs, and unequal educational opportunities. In J. Banks, 8 C. Banks (Eds.) Multicultural education (4th Edition) (pp. 85-98). New York: John Wiley 8 Sons. Apple, M. (1989). Regulating the text: The socio/historical roots of state control. Educational Policy, 3, 1 07-123. Apple, M. (1992). The text and cultural politics. Educational Researcher, 21 (7), 4-11. Apple, M. (1993). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York: Routledge. Apple, M. (2001). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, god and inequality. New York: Routledge-Falmer. Aronowitz, S., 8 Giroux, A. H. (1994). Education still under siege: Critical studies in education and culture. Connecticut: Bergin 8 Garvey. 243 Bacchus, Z. (2006). The impacts of globalization on curriculum development in postcolonial societies. In Y. Kanu, (Ed.), Curriculum as cultural practice: Postcolonial imaginations (pp. 260-279). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Banks J. A. (1994). Stages of ethnicity, in Multiethnic Education (pp. 222-231). (3rd ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn 8 Bacon. Banks, J. A. (1998). Approaches to multicultural curriculum reform. Multicultural Leader, 1 (2,) 1-3. Banks, J. (2002). Introduction to multicultural education (3rd ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn 8 Bacon. Barker, M. C. (2000). Education for international understanding and global competence. Report of a meeting convened by Carnegie Corporation of New York. New York: Carnegie Corporation Barthes, R. (1998). Myth today. In J. Storey (Ed.), Cultural theory and popular culture (pp. 109-118). New York: Prentice Hall. Baynton, D. C. (2001). Disability and the justification of inequality in American history. In P. Longmore 8 L. Umanski (Eds.). The new disability history: American perspectives (pp. 33-57). New York: New York University Press. Begler, E. (1993). Spinning wheels and straw: Balancing content, process, and context in global teacher education programs. Theory into Practice,32 (1), 14-20. Bernson, M. (1998). Asia in the classroom: How to choose and use children's literature. Middle Level Learning, 62(2), M13-M15. Bigelow, B., 8 Peterson, B. (Eds) (2002). Rethinking globalization: Teaching for justice in an unjust worId. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Rethinking Schools Press. Buber, M. (1970). I and thou. Trans. by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Scribner. Burack, J. (2003). The student, the world, and the global education ideology. In J. Leming, L. Ellington 8 K. Porter-Magee (Eds), Where did social studies go wrong?(pp. 40-69) Washington, D. C.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Burbules, C., 8 Torres, A. C. (Ed.) (2000). Globalization and education: Critical perspectives. New York: Routledge. Burns, T. (1999). America’s “Japan". Kyoto Joumal, 40. Retrieved May 31, 2008, 244 from http://www.kyotojournal.org ijselections/kjburns.html Byrnes, R. S. (1997). Global education’s promise: Reinvigorating classroom life in a changing interconnected world. Theory into Practice, 36 (2), 95-101. Case, R. (1993). Key elements of a global perspective. Social Education, 57 (6), 318-325. Castenell, Jr., L. A. and Pinar, W. F. (1993) (Eds). Understanding Curriculum as a Racial Text. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Chandler, C. (2004). Inside the new China: Part communist, part capitalist—and full speed ahead. Fortune, Oct 4. Chen, C. H. (1996). Feminization of Asian (American) men in US society and the mass media: An analysis of the Ballad of Little Jo. Eric No. ED401570 Child Trends Databank (2008). Watching Television. Retrieved, January 30, 2008, from http://www.chiIdtrendsdatabank.org/pdfl55_PDF.pdf Chuong, C. H. (1999). Vietnamese American students: Between the pressure to succeed and the pressure to change. In C. C. Park and M. M. Chi (Eds), Asian American education: Prospects and challenges (pp. 183-200). Westport, CT: Bergin 8 Garvey. Cockrell, K. S., Placier, P. L., Cockrell, D. H., 8 Middleton, J. N. (1999). Coming to terms with “diversity” and “multiculturalism” in teacher education: Learning about our students, changing our practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 351 -366. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. California: Sage Publication. Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). National standards and assessments: Will they improve education? American Journal of Education, 102 (4), 478-510. Denzin, N. K. (1983). Interpretive interactionisim. In G, Morgan (Ed), Beyond the method: strategies for social research (pp. 129-146). California: Sage. Denzin, N. K., 8 Lincoln, Y. A. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin 8 Y. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research 2Ind edition (pp. 1-28). California: Sage. Dewey. J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: MacMiIlan. During, S. (1998). Postcolonialism and globalization: a dialectical relation after 245 all? Postcolonial Studies, 1 (1), 31-47. Encyclopaedia Britannica (2007). Asia in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (pp. 630-632). Chicago, Illinois: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Fehn, B. 8 Koeppen, K. E. (1998). Intensive document-based instruction in a social studies methods course and student teachers’ attitudes and practices in subsequent filed experiences. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(4), 461-84. Felman, S (1992), Education and crisis, or the vicissitudes of teaching. In S. Felman 8 D. Laub (Eds), Testimony: Crises of witnessing in literature, psychology, and history (pp. 1-55). New York: Routledge. Fenton, T. P. (1988). Asia and Pacific resources for educators. Social Education 52 (3), 203. FitzGerald, S. (1997). Is Australia an Asian Country? Can Australia Survive in an East Asian Future? Australia: Allen and Unwin. Flournoy, M. A. (1993). Educating globally competent teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Council on International Education Exchange. ED 373 032. Fontana, A., 8 Frey, H. J. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research 2"d edition (pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The worid is flat: a brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Frisch, M. (1989). American history and the structures of collective memory: A modest exercise in empirical iconography. The Journal of American History, 75 (4). 1 130-1 155. Gaudelli, W. (2003). World class: Teaching and Ieaming in global times. Mahwah, Jew Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gaudelli, W. (2006). Vision and structures of global citizenship: Building dialogic space in curriculum. Paper presented at the annual conference of American Educational Research Association. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Giroux, H.- (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge. 246 Giroux, H. (1994). Disturbing pleasure: Learning popular culture. New York: Routlege Glaser, G. B., 8 Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company. Goetz, J. P., 8 LeCompte, M. D. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 12, 51-70. Guba, E. G., 8 Lincoln, Y. A. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Joumal, 30, 233-252. Haakenson, P. Savukova, G., 8 Mason. T. C. (1999). Teacher education reform and global education: United States and Russia perspectives. lntemational Journal of Social Education, 13(2), 29-47. Hall, S. (1988). New ethnicities. In Kobena Mercer (Ed), Black film, British cinema. London, UK: Institute of Contemporary Art. Hall, S. (1992). Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson 8 A. P. Treichler (Eds), Cultural studies (pp. 277-286). New York: Routledge. Hall, 8. (1997). (Ed). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London, UK: Sage. Hamamoto, D. (1994). Monitored peril: Asian American and the politics of TV representation. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Hanvey, R. (1976). An attainable global perspective. New York: Center for Global Perspective. Harada, V. H. (1994). An analysis of Asian American stereotypes in recent fiction for adolescent Readers. Ethnic Forum, 14, 43-58. Harada, V. H. (2001). The treatment of Asian Americans in U. S. history textbooks published 1994-1996. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED448072. Hatch, A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. 247 Heafner, L. T. (2008). What does it mean to be a citizen? Defining social studies in the age of marginalization and globalization. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 2(1), 1-5. Heilman, E. (2006). Critical, liberal, and poststructural challenges for global education. In A. Segall, E. Heilman 8 C. H. Cherryholmes (Eds), Social studies— The next generation: Re-searching in the Postmodernism (pp. 189-208). New York: Peter Lang. Held, D., 8 McGrew, A. (2002). GIobalization/Anti- globalization. Massachusetts: Blackwell. Hesketh, T., Li, L., 8 Zhou, W. X (2005). The effect of China’s one-child family policy after 25 years. The New England Journal of Medicine, Health Policy Report, 353 (11), 1171-1176. Holstein, J, A., 8 Gubrium, J. F. (2002). Active interviewing. In D. Weinberg (Ed), Qualitative Research Methods. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hong, W. P. (In press). Reading school textbooks as a cultural and Political Text: Representations of Asia in geography textbooks used in the United States. Joumal of Curriculum Theorizing. Forthcoming. Hong. W.P., 8 Adler, S. (2008). Research on the social studies methods course. In E. Heilman, R. Fruja and M. Massias (Eds). Social studies and diversity education: Methods for teachers and teacher educators. New York: Routledge. Forthcoming. Huggan, G. (1995). Decolonizing the map. In B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths 8 H. Tiffin (Eds), The post-colonial studies reader (pp. 407-411). New York: Routledge. Hurren, W. (2000). Line dancing: An atlas of geography curriculum and poetic possibilities. New York: Peter Lang. International Development Research Center (2008). Diversity and human survival. Downloaded January 30, 2008 from, http:/Iwww.idrc.calen/ev- 64518-201-1-DO_TOPIC.htmI Jensen, A. L., 8 Larson, W. R. (Ed). (2005). New horizons in developmental theory and research: New directions for child and adolescent development. New Jersey: Jossey Bass. Johnson, A. G. (2001). Privilege, power, and difference. Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill. 248 Kanu, Y. (Ed). (2006). Curriculum as cultural practice: Postcolonial imaginations. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Kim, A. 8 Yeh, C. J. (2002). Stereotypes of Asian American students. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED462510. Kirkwood, T. F. (20013). Our global age requires global education: clarifying definitional ambiguities. The Social Studies, 92(1), 10-15. Kirkwood, T. F. (2001b), Preparing teachers to teach from a global perspective, The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, Winter, 5-12. Kirkwood, T. F. 8 Benton, J. E. (2002). The lessons of Vietnam: using literature to introduce students to the Vietnam War. Social Education 66 (6), 362- 368. Kirst, M. W. (1994). The politics of nationalizing curricular content, American Journal of Education, 102 (4), 383-393. Kniep, W. M. (1986). Defining global education by its content. Social Education 50(1 0), 437-466. Kniep, W. M. (1989). Social studies within a global education. Social Education 53(6), 399-404. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995): But that’s a good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-163. Lamy, S. L. (1991). Global education: A conflict of images. In K. A. Tye, (Ed), Global education from thought to action. The 1991 ASCD Yearbook (pp. 49-63). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lee, M. A. 8 Solomon, N. (1990). Unreliable sources: A guide to detecting bias in news media. New York: Carol Publishing Group. Lee, S. (1996). Unraveling the model minority stereotype. New York: Teachers College Press. Lew, J. (2006). Asian Americans in class: Charting the achievement gap among Korean American youth. New York: Teachers College Press. Lewis, M. W. 8 Wigen, K. E. (1997). The myth of continents: A Critique of metageography. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 249 Lincoln, Y. A., 8 Guba, E. G. (1985). Processing naturalistically obtained data. In Y. A. Lincoln 8 E. G. Guba (Eds), Naturalistic inquiry (pp. 332-356). California: Sage. Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York: Routledge Palmer. Loomba, A. (2005) Colonialism/postcolonialism. New York: Routledge. Lutz, C. A., 8 Collins, J. L. (1993). Reading national geographic. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. MacLeod, J. (1995) Ain’t no makin’ it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income neighborhood. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Marchetti, G. (1993). Romance and Yellow Peril: Race, sex and discursive practices in Hollywood fiction. Calofomia: University of California Press. Martin, M., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzales, E. J., 8 Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international science report. Massachusetts: Boston College TIMSS 8 PIRLS International Study Center. Maslin, J. (1998). Film review: A warrior, she takes on Huns and stereotypes. New York Times, June 19. McCarthy, C. 8 Dimitriadis, G. (2000). Governmentality and the sociology of education; Media, educational policy and the politics of resentment. British JoumaI of Education, 21(2), 169-185. McLaren, P., 8 Farahmandpur, R. (2001). Teaching against globalization and the new imperialism: Toward a revolutionary pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education, 52 (2), 1 36-150. Merryfield, M. M. (1991). Preparing American secondary social studies teachers to teach with a global perspective: A status report, Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 11-20. Merryfield, M. M. (1993). Reflective practice in global education: Strategies for teacher educators. Theory into Practice, 32 (1), 27-32. Merryfield, M. M. (1994). From teacher education to the classroom: Reflections of teachers upon their teacher education experiences in global education. ED 392 714 Merryfield, M. M. (1997). A framework for teacher education n global perspectives, In M. M. Merryfield, E. Jarchow, S. Pickert (Eds), Preparing 250 teachers to teach global perspectives: A handbook for teacher educators. California: Corwin Press. Merryfield, M. M. (1998). Pedagogy for global perspectives in education: Studies of teachers’ thinking and practice. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(3), 342-379. Merryfield, M. M. (2000). Whyaren’t teachers being prepared to teach for diversity, equity, and global interconnectedness? A study of lived experiences in the making of multicultural and global educators? Teacher and Teacher Education, 16, 429-443. Merryfield, M. M. (2001). Moving the center of global education: From imperial world views that divide the world to double consciousness, contrapuntal pedagogy, hybridity, and cross cultural competence. In W. B. Stanley (Ed), Critical issues in social studies research for the 21" Century (pp. 179-208). Connecticut: information Age Publishing. Merryfield, M. M. (2002). The difference a global educator can make. Educational Leadership, 60(2), 18-21. Merryfield, M. M., 8 White, C. (1996). Issues-Centered global education. In R. Evans 8 D. W. Saxe (Eds), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 177- 187). Washington DC: The National Council for the Social Studies. Miles, M., 8 Huberman, M. (1995). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. California: Sage Publication Min, P. G. (1995). Asian Americans: Contemporary trends and issues. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Mo, W., 8 Shen, W. (2000). A mean wink at authenticity: Chinese images in Disney’s Mulan. The New Advocate, 13(2), 129-143. Nakayama, T. K. (1994). Show/down time: “Race,” gender, sexuality, and popular culture. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 11, 162-179. National Commission on Asia in the Schools (2001). Asia in the schools: Preparing young Americans for today’s interconnected world. New York: Asia Society. NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) (2007). The condition of education 2007. Washington DC: US Department of Education. 251 Nelson, C., Treichler A. P., 8 Grossberg, L. (1992). Cultural studies: An introduction. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson 8 A. P. Treichler (Eds), Cultural , studies (pp. 1-22). New York: Routledge. Nussbaum, M (1997). Cultivating humanity; A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Padin, J. A. (2005). The normative mulattoes: The press, Latinos, and the racial climate on the moving immigration frontier. Sociological Perspectives, 48 (1), 49—75. Parry, B (1995). Problems in current theories of colonial discourse. In B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths 8 H. Tiffin (Eds), The post-colonial studies reader (pp. 36-44). New York: Routledge. People's Daily Online (2003). GE Predicts 2005 China sales of 5 billion US dollars. Retrieved April 01, 2008, from httpzllenglish.people.com.cn/200308/27/en920030827_123177.shtml Pike, G. (2000) Global education and national identity: In pursuit of meaning. Theory into Practice, 39(2), 64-73. Popkewitz, T. S. (1980). Global education as a slogan system. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(3), 303-316. Porter, C. A. (1994). National Standards and School Improvement in the 19905: Issues and Promise. American JoumaI of Education, 102 (4), 421-449. RaBasa, J. (1995). Allegories of atlas. In B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths 8 H. Tiffin(Eds), The post-colonial studies reader (pp. 358-364). New York: Routledge. Ravitch, D. (1995). National standards in American education: A citizen ’3 guide. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Redway, J. W., 8 Hinman, R. (1921). Natural school geography. New York: American Book Company. Russell III, B. W. (2007). Using film in the social studies. Maryland: University Press of America. Sachs, J. (2002). The end of poverty. New York: The Penguin Press. Said, E. W. (2003). OrientaIism. New York: Vintage Books. (Originally published in 1978) 252 Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control? Sovereignty in an age of globalization. New York: Columbia University Press. Scheurich, J, J. (1995). A Postmodernist critique of research interviewing. Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(3), 239-252. Scheurich, J. J., 8 Young, D. M. (1997). Coloring epistemologies; Are our research epistemologies racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26(4), 4-16. - Schneider, J. and Laihua, W. (2000). Giving care, writing self: A new ethnography. New York: Peter Lang. Schofield, W. J., (1990). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In E Eisner 8 A. Peshkin (Eds), Qualitative inquiry in education (pp. 201- 232). New York: Columbia University Press. Segall, A. (2003). Maps as stories about the world. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 16(1), 21-25. Seixas, P (2000). Schweigen! Die Kinder! or, does postmodern history have a place in the schools? In P. Seixas, S. Wineburg and P. Stearns (Eds), Knowing, Teaching and Leaming History: National and lntemational Perspectives (pp. 19-37). New York: New York University Press. Shah, H (2003). “Asian culture” and Asian American identities in the television and film industries of the United States. Studies in Media 8 Information Literacy Education, 3(3). Retrieved May 31, 2008, from httpzllwww.utpjournals.com/jour. ihtml?lp=similelissue11 IshahX1.html. Short, 8., 8 Fengying, Z. (1998). Looking locally at China’s one-child policy. Studies in Family Planning, 29(4), 373-387. Sleeter, C. E., 8 Grant, C. E. (2003). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class and gender (2"d ed). New York: John Wiley 8 Sons. Slemon, S. (1995). The scramble for the post-colonialism. In B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths 8 H. Tiffin (Eds), The post-colonial studies reader (pp. 45-55). New York: Routledge. Sperry, C. (2006). Seeking truth in the social studies classroom: media literacy, critical thinking and teaching about the Middle East. Social Education, 70 (1), 37-43. 253 Spring, J, (2004). How educational ideologies are shaping global society: Intergovernmental organizations, Ngo’s, and the decline of the nation-state. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stiglitz, J. E. (2006). Broken promises. In J. Krieger (Ed), Globalization and state power: A reader (pp. 36-48). New York: Pearson Longman. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin 8 Y. 8. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435-454). California: Sage. Steger, M . B. (2003). Globalization: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford) The National Geographic Education Foundation (2006). National Geographic Roper-Public Affairs 2006 geographic literacy study. New York: The National Geographic. Tye, K. (Ed.).(1991). Global education: From thought and to action. Virginia: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. van Dijik, A. T. (2000). New(s) racism: A discourse analytical approach. In S. Cottle (Ed). Ethnic minorities and the media (pp. 33-49). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: McGraw Hill. VanFossen. J. P. (2005). “Reading and Math Take So Much of the Time...”: An overview of social studies instruction in elementary classrooms in Indiana. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33 (3), 376-403. Volf, M. (1996). Exclusion and Embrace: A theological exploration of identity, otherness, and reconciliation. Tennessee: Abingdon Press. Walcott, F. H. (1990). On seeking—and rejecting—validity in qualitative research. In E Eisner 8 A. Peshkin (Eds), Qualitative inquiry in education (pp.121- 152). New York: Columbia University. Walker, T. (2006). Adventures in metropolis: Popular culture in social studies. In A. Segall, E. Heilman 8 C. H. Cherryholmes (Eds), Social studies—The next generation: Re-searching in the Postmodemism (pp. 171-187). New York: Peter Lang. Werner, W. (2000). Reading authorship into texts. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(2), 193-219. Willinsky, J. (1999). Leaming to divide the wand: Education at empire ’s world. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. 254 Wilson, H. A. (1997). lnfusing global perspectives throughout a secondary social studies program. In M. M. Merryfield, E. Jarchow, S. Pickert (Eds), Preparing teachers to teach global perspectives: A handbook for teacher educators (pp. 143-166). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Pennsylvania: Temple University Press. Yin, R. K (2003). Case study research: a design and methods. California: Sage Publication. Young, J. C. R. (2001). Postcolonialism: An historical introduction. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. Xie, S. (1997). Rethinking the problem of postcolonialism. New Literary History, 28 (1 ), 7-19. 255 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII